Me First
by Craig Smith
People think they're clever and so they present me with a paradox in their thinking, implying that it's a fault in mine. This never fails to amuse because of the vindictive and moralistic tone with which they deliver their complaints.
"You believe in survival of the fittest, right? Well then you obviously would support immigrants, since they're more fit for the jobs that normally our population takes. They're harder workers and some, like the Jews, are better investors. That means you either support these people, or you're a hypocrite."
I hear this one quite a bit and it infuriates these people when I don't take them very seriously. In their mind, they've discovered an absolute and immediate paradox that should cause me to cast aside all of what I've learned me entire life. If I did that, they reason, I would have overcome paradox by accepting a massive compromise. In their view, they are "better" than me for having non-paradoxical worldviews which ultimately can be summarized as "offend no one."
Since they're not students of history, they don't know that our modern society has an extremely poor record of accepting new ideas because they offend someone's dogmatic view of the universe. I seem to recall that the presence of Christianity in Europe caused us to demand that the world was flat years after this was proven to be untrue; the same complex of ideas is at work today, when people dismiss "The Bell Curve" or "The Color of Crime" with a socially-justified assumption (but no proof). Even clowns like Steven J. Gould, who make a handsome profit by writing down these homilies and through sleight of hand claiming to "prove" them "scientifically," wouldn't deny this tendency to post-Jewish western history.
This truth should expect no less resistance. The world is round, but if it's politically correct and/or necessary for certain religious delusions to insist so, people will go around "proving" that the world is flat with whatever dishonest arguments and sleight of hand "spin" they think they need. My arguments are much simpler, and have to do with the nature of reality.
An immigrant always has an easier job than an established citizen.
Where the immigrant must move in, make a place for himself in an economic sphere, and then adapt to the pressures of citizenship, the citizen must constantly adapt to the pressures of citizenship while earning his living, including the requirement of helping to subsidize new arrivals. Immigrants universally don't have health care, cut corners on legal requirements including paying taxes, and, because they settle for lower-paying jobs that often suck, not only are not expected by society at large but don't expect from themselves any contribution to social well-being.
In short, any society has an inherent socialism to it, where citizens come together to provide for public services, and the citizen always has a higher burden of maintaining this burden than an immigrant does. Whether this is simply owning a house and making sure it looks as nice as those of one's neighbors, or the many ways - PTAs, school boards, churches, bowling leagues, social groups and neighborhood committees - that a citizen contributes to his community, it represents a higher cost.
An immigrant moves into the place with the idea that he will someday own a house, someday own a car that isn't a junker, someday contribute to social activities and someday be part of this socialism of helping others. A citizen, who must compete with the immigrant economically, will have to do all that the immigrant does while bearing this burden of socialism, or he will be seen as non-cooperative by his fellow citizens. This is why Social Darwinism is a farce and immigrants always have the advantage over native-born citizens (unlike liberal theories, this explanation actually shows why immigrant groups are universally resisted, worldwide).
The citizen who, unwilling to give up this socialization of communal function that helps out his neighbors, in turn points to immigrants as a drain on resources, will be criticized heartily by those who profit from immigrants - paying them less, paying less health care and benefits, and in turn pocketing the cash. The people among us who profit from immigrants are more of a threat than the immigrants themselves, since immigrants will not go to a new place unless they know there is work and money there.
These immigrants are me-firsters. They cut corners for their own benefit and don't give a damn about their host population or its own welfare. But those who point accusing fingers at those who dare criticize immigrants are me-firsters as well, because they want the ability to consider themselves smarter and morally better than those of us who, brushing aside an overapplication of the socialism of communal function, simply identify the problem: not the me-firsters but the attitude that me-firsting is okay.
Source
by Craig Smith
People think they're clever and so they present me with a paradox in their thinking, implying that it's a fault in mine. This never fails to amuse because of the vindictive and moralistic tone with which they deliver their complaints.
"You believe in survival of the fittest, right? Well then you obviously would support immigrants, since they're more fit for the jobs that normally our population takes. They're harder workers and some, like the Jews, are better investors. That means you either support these people, or you're a hypocrite."
I hear this one quite a bit and it infuriates these people when I don't take them very seriously. In their mind, they've discovered an absolute and immediate paradox that should cause me to cast aside all of what I've learned me entire life. If I did that, they reason, I would have overcome paradox by accepting a massive compromise. In their view, they are "better" than me for having non-paradoxical worldviews which ultimately can be summarized as "offend no one."
Since they're not students of history, they don't know that our modern society has an extremely poor record of accepting new ideas because they offend someone's dogmatic view of the universe. I seem to recall that the presence of Christianity in Europe caused us to demand that the world was flat years after this was proven to be untrue; the same complex of ideas is at work today, when people dismiss "The Bell Curve" or "The Color of Crime" with a socially-justified assumption (but no proof). Even clowns like Steven J. Gould, who make a handsome profit by writing down these homilies and through sleight of hand claiming to "prove" them "scientifically," wouldn't deny this tendency to post-Jewish western history.
This truth should expect no less resistance. The world is round, but if it's politically correct and/or necessary for certain religious delusions to insist so, people will go around "proving" that the world is flat with whatever dishonest arguments and sleight of hand "spin" they think they need. My arguments are much simpler, and have to do with the nature of reality.
An immigrant always has an easier job than an established citizen.
Where the immigrant must move in, make a place for himself in an economic sphere, and then adapt to the pressures of citizenship, the citizen must constantly adapt to the pressures of citizenship while earning his living, including the requirement of helping to subsidize new arrivals. Immigrants universally don't have health care, cut corners on legal requirements including paying taxes, and, because they settle for lower-paying jobs that often suck, not only are not expected by society at large but don't expect from themselves any contribution to social well-being.
In short, any society has an inherent socialism to it, where citizens come together to provide for public services, and the citizen always has a higher burden of maintaining this burden than an immigrant does. Whether this is simply owning a house and making sure it looks as nice as those of one's neighbors, or the many ways - PTAs, school boards, churches, bowling leagues, social groups and neighborhood committees - that a citizen contributes to his community, it represents a higher cost.
An immigrant moves into the place with the idea that he will someday own a house, someday own a car that isn't a junker, someday contribute to social activities and someday be part of this socialism of helping others. A citizen, who must compete with the immigrant economically, will have to do all that the immigrant does while bearing this burden of socialism, or he will be seen as non-cooperative by his fellow citizens. This is why Social Darwinism is a farce and immigrants always have the advantage over native-born citizens (unlike liberal theories, this explanation actually shows why immigrant groups are universally resisted, worldwide).
The citizen who, unwilling to give up this socialization of communal function that helps out his neighbors, in turn points to immigrants as a drain on resources, will be criticized heartily by those who profit from immigrants - paying them less, paying less health care and benefits, and in turn pocketing the cash. The people among us who profit from immigrants are more of a threat than the immigrants themselves, since immigrants will not go to a new place unless they know there is work and money there.
These immigrants are me-firsters. They cut corners for their own benefit and don't give a damn about their host population or its own welfare. But those who point accusing fingers at those who dare criticize immigrants are me-firsters as well, because they want the ability to consider themselves smarter and morally better than those of us who, brushing aside an overapplication of the socialism of communal function, simply identify the problem: not the me-firsters but the attitude that me-firsting is okay.
Source
